Again, you raise quantum physics and argue that because you have not defined a cause, no cause exists, which of course is an assumption on your part and not actually evidence that causality is suspended in quantum physics...<quoted text>
You ignored all of my points. Science is NOT based upon the assumption of causality. That is shown by the *science* of quantum physics, which is not a causal theory.
You still did not define 'causality'. Since I did and my definition doesn't lead to the conclusions you think follow, you need to at least provide a different definition or argue that mine is incorrect.
I pointed out that the *actual* law of causality is: every caused event has a physical cause. You have not refuted that version of the law, but it is clear that it does not support your conclusions. It does, however, follow from my definition of causality.
You have shown your willingness to ignore arguments that reach conclusions you don't like. Now, can you actually stand up and defend your position, or are you simply going to re-state arguments that have already been shown to be wrong
Just because you cannot identify the cause of an effect, does not mean it does not have a cause.
Yes, every effect is caused, that is the nature of causality which we observe.
So what was the First Cause?
You have two choices:
1. Account for the First Cause.
2. Deny it and reduce yourself to an infinite regression, which of course does not account for anything and is illogical.
There has to be a First Cause, causality proves that.
But you have to deny that simple truth.
Hence your appeal to the murky theoretical nature of quantum physics as a rescuing device....